SPSSI’s Courtwatch Committee: Looking for the Intersection of Psychology and Law

Cynthia J. Najdowski, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Social-Personality Psychology Doctoral Program,University at Albany

In courts throughout the United States—ranging from local city trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court—judges regularly make decisions about issues that are relevant to psychologists’ work. In some cases judges use psychological science to support their legal analysis, while in others they ignore or dismiss research findings that could have helped them to reach an evidence-based conclusion. Sometimes court decisions highlight psycholegal questions that remain in need of scholarly attention. Other times, case outcomes directly impact how psychologists do their job.

To educate psychologists about these matters, SPSSI’s Courtwatch Committee monitors and reports on pending and recent court decisions in the “Judicial Notebook,” a regular column in the APA’s Monitor on Psychology magazine. Our central goal in producing these columns is to make recommendations for how psychologists can leverage their expertise to inform policy and law and shape the future of psychological science and practice.

For example, in the March 2026 column, I and Margaret Stevenson examined attorneys’ use of prospective jurors’ attitudes toward the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement during jury selection, particularly in cases involving police officer defendants. We raised concerns that excluding jurors based on favorable BLM attitudes could disproportionately remove people of color from juries. We also highlighted psychological research suggesting that BLM attitudes may reflect broader beliefs about racial equality, policing, and social hierarchy and may influence jurors’ decision-making. We urged psychologists to conduct research, provide expert testimony, and submit amicus briefs to help courts develop jury-selection procedures that promote, rather than undermine, jury representativeness and impartiality.

In the July 2026 column, Apryl Alexander examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, which held that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors regulates speech and therefore must satisfy strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. Alexander emphasized the substantial body of psychological research documenting the ineffectiveness and potential harms of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth and raised concerns that the ruling could constrain states’ ability to establish standards for mental health treatment and safeguard patients. She also highlighted opportunities for psychologists to help courts and policymakers evaluate these legal questions in light of psychological science and to advocate for policies that promote the well-being of LGBTQ+ youth.

To spread the word about how psychology can impact legal policy and practice as well as how psychology is impacted by various court decisions, our “Judicial Notebook” columns are shared with all APA members via the Monitor on Psychology. We also occasionally share notices about our columns via SPSSI’s email and social media communications and republish them on SPSSI's Psychology Today “Sound Science, Sound Policy” blog. Finally, our columns are also archived on the SPSSI website. I encourage you to keep your eye on all of these platforms to learn more about the Courtwatch Committee’s work and your role in improving the impact and practice of psychology.

back to menu